California won't do business with the major drugstore chain Walgreens because the company said it wouldn't dispense abortion pills in some states with strict abortion laws.

"California won't be doing business with @walgreens— or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk. We're done," California Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted on Monday, days after Walgreens made its announcement.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January made a regulatory change to allow retail drugstores to dispense the abortion pill mifepristone. The decision is generally viewed to potentially expand access to abortion through drugs. Walgreens said it would get certified to be qualified to dispense the pill.

But caught in the fight over abortion rights and under pressure from antiabortion lawmakers and potential lawsuits targeting dispensation of abortion pills, Walgreens announced on Friday that it won't dispense mifepristone used in medication abortion for early stages of pregnancy in 20 states. That was after the company received a letter signed by attorneys general from 20 Republican-led states, including Texas and Alaska.

However, Walgreens changed its statement on Monday to a more general tone: "Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so," the company said in a statement. "Providing legally approved medications to patients is what pharmacies do and is rooted in our commitment to the communities in which we operate."

It is unclear whether the company will provide the abortion pill in the 20 states. Walgreens is one of the largest pharmacy chains, operating about 9,000 retail stores in the US.

Some online comments indicated that many people were disappointed by Walgreens' decision and said they will take their business elsewhere. Another major pharmacy chain, Rite Aid, said that it was evaluating its ability to dispense mifepristone.

Meanwhile, in Texas five women who sued the state on Monday claiming that they were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives or their fetuses, shared their stories at a news conference in front of the state Capitol on Tuesday.

Texas law bans abortion after a fetus heartbeat could be detected — usually at six weeks when many women aren't aware they are pregnant. Exceptions are allowed when a physician determines there is risk of "substantial" harm to the mother, or if the fetus has a fatal diagnosis.

However, a potential prison term of up to 99 years, $100,000 in fines and the loss of medical licenses has made some doctors unwilling to provide abortion services even in cases allowed by law.

"Texas officials claim the bans they passed protect 'life', but there's nothing pro-life about them. I nearly died as a direct result of the antiabortion restrictions in Texas," said Amanda Zurawski, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. "What's more, they put the lives of my potential future children at risk, as the damage done to my body has already had a negative impact on my reproductive health."

The lawsuit, Zurawski vs State of Texas, was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights. It seeks clarity regarding when doctors can provide abortions under the state's exception for "medical emergencies" to protect the life and health of the pregnant person.

Zurawski, from Austin, was denied an abortion after she experienced pre-term pre-labor rupture of membranes at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Three days later, she developed life-threatening sepsis that caused one of her fallopian tubes to become permanently closed, compromising her future ability to have children.

Lauren Hall, from the Dallas area, discovered at 18 weeks that her fetus wouldn't develop a skull, and continuing the pregnancy posed severe risks to her. She was denied an abortion and had to travel to the Seattle are for one.

Agencies contributed to this story.